Reason Morning Links: Obama Celebrates, House Passes Another Big Reform Bill, More Homeless in NYC

|

NEXT: Will ObamaCare Make it Easier to Treat Us All Like Dogs? Sadly, I Doubt it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wrong link on “homeless”.

    1. I guess they’re homeless due to the Afghan opium crop.

      1. Still a bad link on ‘homeless’ story.

  2. Obama, Biden celebrate health care victory.

    By repeatedly watching this.

  3. Troops on the ground figure out that destroying cash crops is not the way to win hearts and minds. Who would have thought such a thing?

  4. Opium is an interesting test of people’s commitment. If winning the war in Afghanistan is that important (and I think it is) or conversely if you are on the other side and think ending our involvement there is so important, then why aren’t you willing to at least think about legalizing opium? If we did that and granted the Afghan warlords a concession in the product on the condition that they don’t support Al Quada or the Taliban, I think our problems with the Taliban would be solved very quickly.

    1. John, you raise good points.

      Apparently, for reasons that elude (non-cynical) me, WOD trumps Afghanistan.

      1. Our soldiers die and we run the risk of terrorism coming from Afghanistan so that we can try to legally prevent junkies from getting high. That doesn’t sound like a very good cause to me.

    2. John, I don’t think you’d find many people on this board are in favor of leaving Afghanistan but who are opposed to full legalization. Your point is fair, however, for most liberals.

      1. And conservatives for that matter. If winning the war on terrorism is so damned important, why is the war on drugs more important?

        1. Because opium is a gateway drug leading to marijuana use.

          1. Ohhhhhh ….

        2. You’re right, that is a very interesting point.

        3. why is the war on drugs more important?
          two words: teh childrenz
          the irony is that the Taliban virtually eliminated opium poppy production in the years preceding the invasion of afghanistan. once they needed money for the fight, they started promoting it.

          1. True, and then a more absurd form of conspiracy theorist said that the US was “supporting the Taliban” because it continued to make the compensation payments for Afghan farmers whose crops were destroyed, to encourage them to not grow opium.

        4. If winning the war on terrorism is so damned important, why is the war on drugs more important?

          Uh, um, because drugs fund terrorism.

  5. What I don’t get is how they can’t parlay the massive amounts of opium coming out of Afghanistan into some sort of regulated and stepped-up production of the actual beneficial derivatives, like morphine. I mean, it’s better than nothing, and it’s better than the perverse incentives that keep driving opium prices up and thus production for illicit products up.

    1. Demand for morphine is going to skyrocket thanks to last night’s vote. Actually, demographics were already going to increase demand.

      1. After hearing the headline on the radio and reading it in this morning’s paper (yes, I still get an honest-to-gosh newsPAPER delivered to my house every morning), I think I need some morphine.

    2. That is a very good question. There are actually shortages of Morphine in parts of the world, and the US is destroying massive amounts of the stuff.

  6. Said the president to the nation, “Tonight, we answered the call of history.”

    He neglected to mention that it was Stalin who placed the call.

    1. History has been drunk dialing again.

    2. “Hello, Satan? It’s me, Barack.”

    3. Historic, my ass. All they did was take our current screwy mixed public-private system and expanded it in scope.

      1. Mike is right…. They didn’t solve any of the real problems, they just kicked the can down the road. At least they kicked it down the side that allows me to make some of my own choices.

        But they also made some of the bad things about our system worse, particularly in increasing the ties between my employer and my health insurance.

        And all of that ignores the taxes and other redistributionist things that were going to happen in either case. At least I’m not going to the VA for all of my care. I used to work in a VA hospital. Scary place.

      2. “”Historic, my ass. All they did was take our current screwy mixed public-private system and expanded it in scope.””

        It is historic, primarily due to the mandate. But I think you’re right about expanding the current system.

    4. History called collect, because in 2032 they’re flat broke.

    5. Hey, STELLA!!

  7. Obama, Biden celebrate health care victory.

    I also celebrate when I get the opportunity to bend someone over, so I can only imagine their giggities getting to do it to a whole nation of people.

    1. It is a joy that before tonight only Steve Smith and his kind knew and understood. Now Obama gets a taste.

      1. We are limiting your comments to 300 today, John. Use them wisely.

          1. You double posted there on purpose, right?

            1. No. But it seems to have been a happy accident.

            2. We are limiting your comments to 300 today, x,y. Use them wisely.

      2. He only wants to wet his beak…

  8. The bond markets now consider it safer to loan money to Warren Buffett, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and Lowe’s than the United States federal government, as the bankrupting and destruction of the country moves forward at breakneck speed.

    1. But this bill will reduce the budget, the Democrats say so.

      1. Apparently, having to put their own money at risk means bond investors aren’t as stupid as your average Dem Congressscum.

    2. I won’t be holding my breath for lefty-libs to cite this as an example of the “greedy” fedgov preying on investors.

    3. It’s 3.5 basis points (0.035%) on yields of less than 1% for 2 yr instruments.

      So for a thousand dollar buy in, Berkshire will yield $1017.80 after two years, while the feds will yield $1018.50.

      7 parts per thousand over two years is not exactly breakneck.

      1. 7 parts per ten thousand.

        1. I can’t wait to see what the numbers will look like at the end of this year when the national debt is around $14 trillion and 95% of GDP, or in two, three, five more years.

          1. Japan’s is already between 170 and 200 percent of the gdp depending on whom you belive
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..ublic_debt
            but in any case higher than any country not run by Robert Mugabe.

            Their yields however are among the lowest in the world
            http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/japan.html

            I guess my question is: Why *aren’t* the bond markets more forward looking? I agree that the debt growth for the USG to around 100% of GDP in less than 5 years is pretty much an inevitability, yet all the instruments are at much lower nominal yields than when “Bankruptcy 1995” was a best seller. (and even inflation indexed long bonds are right at 2%)

            1. The investment markets are often shortsighted and irrational for a simple reason: people are often shortsighted and irrational.

              There were MAYBE a couple of dozen people or so on the entire planet who discovered the problem of all the toxic assets floating around in the global mortgage-backed securities markets before it was too late.

  9. Celebrate! We now have a comprehensive 2300 page health care insurance / tax increase / student loan / airport construction / mohair subsidy plan, written in secret by committee whose own chairman admits he’s never read it, “voted” on by a congress who has never read it, reconciled without reconciliation, passed with a bribe-soaked 2 vote one-party majority against the will of the public and bipartisan opposition.

    Now it will be signed into law by a president who has likewise never read it, administered by that same president who has never once held a meaningful job, financed by a tax-cheating Treasury secretary, and overseen by a obese Surgeon General.

    1. Welcome to politics in America.

    2. You make it sound likes that’s a bad thing…

    3. And somebody called me a name! Bloody Sunday! Racism!

    4. You forgot to mention Obama’s nicotine habit!

      1. Guess who’ll still be allowed to smoke after it’s banned for the rest of us.

    5. TRUST DEMOCRACY!

      1. Well stated by iowahawk.

      2. At this point, I’d rather give you a try at running the place than trust democracy any further.

        1. At this point, I’m up for giving Warty a try.

          1. Dude, I would fucking rule. Free Makarovs for everyone!

    6. Iowahawk, “bribe-and-threat soaked” works better.

  10. Said the president to the nation, “Tonight, we answered the call of history.”

    On November 2, we answer the call of history.

    1. Do you see what happens, Nancy, when you fuck a stranger in the ass?

    2. Maybe – but I doubt it will do much good. When have the Republicans ever repealed anything?

      They’ll use this bill as grist for fundraising letters, and then ignore it entirely after they get into power. Just watch.

      1. I doubt it. If they don’t repeal they will try to amend heavily. They have to know it’s the only thing that will keep them in power, especially with Obama running for reelection in 2012 and ACORN “getting out the vote.”

        1. Yeah, if anything the Republicans have shown they understand what will keep them in power.

        2. The Dems seemed to do pretty good in the 2008 elections, dispite not getting us out of Iraq, why should we expect things to be different with Repubs and healthcare.

  11. Mugabe in ’12!

    1. Not if I have anything to say about it!! Do you know how fucking BUSY I am??!!

      1. Sorry short stuff, but the State Department says you’ll be dead by 2012.

        1. I’m getting better!

          1. I think I’ll go for a walk!

            I feel like dancing!

            1. Quiet! You’re not fooling anyone, you’ll be dead by morning!

  12. Where’s my free healthcare? It’s my birthright as an American, and I want it NOW.

  13. The damn bill hasn’t even been signed yet and my bosses already fired half of our support staff.

    1. Damned capitalist pigs

      1. @John: Really. Seems premature….we don’t even really know what its all about. Who knows, maybe they were considering a cut all along, and used this as an excuse (not realizing how implausible it sounds). Frankly, I’m a little embarrassed and a little angry.

        1. If the support staff were part-timers, then it makes sense. you have to have budget space to pay increased health insurance premiums for the full-timers.

        2. That sucks. Cutting support staff is the dumbest way to cut costs. Support staff are force multipliers. They allow you to get more productivity out of your higher paid specialized staff. You get rid of your support staff you just end up paying high wage people to make copies instead of doing what you are paying them to do.

          1. “$” might have a point, but I hope other businesses take a deep breath before they go off on some damn fool idealistic crusade. And I think I just compared the managing partner of my firm to Uncle Owen.

            1. Regular?
              http://www.vintagestarwarsacti…..igures.jpg

              Or extra cripsy?
              http://www.mcmorran.org/imagel…..ncle_o.jpg

              1. Extra crispy, with a dusting of Beru powder.

      2. John, it turns out that the layoffs were going to happen anyway, and one of our more conservative partners was “joking” that the health care bill was the reason. My bad for overreacting.

    2. Those Indians will find other work.

    3. The damn bill hasn’t even been signed yet and my bosses already fired half of our support staff.

      That’s a blatant overreaction. There is a significant chance that this shitty law will be found unconstitutional (because it is) and struck down.

      1. Only parts of the bill.

        When mandatory purchases are banned, then the cost of the system will sky rocket because young, healthy workers won’t be forced to subsidize old geezers through premiums.

        That leaves only taxes. So things can actually get worse.

        1. “””When mandatory purchases are banned,”””

          I don’t see that happening.

          1. Depends on who is sitting on the Supreme Court when it gets there.

            1. I expect SCOTUS to overturn my madatory health care right after they overturn my mandatory retirement plan.

              1. The only issue is that you do not have a mandatory retirement plan. And before you jump in and say something about Social Security, you might want to take a brief sweep of your eyes over this.

                1. By the same token, your mandatory health care plan doesn’t really mean you necessarily get one despite paying into it via your taxes.

                2. The mandatory part is that you pay.

      2. hahahaha

        Ahahahahahahaha

        AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

        Oh man. That was a good one.

        Hee.

      3. Soon firing workers will be illegal.

    4. “”The damn bill hasn’t even been signed yet and my bosses already fired half of our support staff.””

      If that’s true, it’s the health care bill is just an excuse. He probably wanted to cut payroll anyway.

  14. Maybe there’s a giant federal subsidy in the health care bill to seize all Afghan opium production and turn it over to a Pfizer/ADM joint venture.

    “Take this pill, and stop whining about the government, loser.”

    1. Don’t get my hopes up.

    2. If they are going to so thoroughly fuck me in the wallet, the least they can do is to let me get high to ease the pain.

  15. And so It begins.

    The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

  16. Some other website has been ogling our woman! We must avenge Lobster Girl’s honor!

    1. That site is incredible. The internet is man’s greatest achievement.

      1. We are in complete agreement.

        1. After looking at the website I have a strong urge to eat some Lucky Charms.

          1. You’re not the only one Chartreuse. You’re not the only one.

    1. Metallica was freakin’ sweet in the ’80s.

      1. +1 for correct apostopheication.

        1. I actually use apostrophes above the 98th percentile.

          1. As much as I should hate late Metallica, I’m listening to “St. Anger” right now (the song, not the album).

            1. Ick. St. Anger (the album) was their lamest offering by far. The song itself is – meh. I can listen to it. Can’t say that of anything else on that album.

              S&M, though – probably their best.

              Death Magnetic was at least not as horrifically disappointing as St. Anger was. It actually has some pretty good stuff on it, but nothing like And Justice For All.

              Anyhow…

  17. They said the informant chose the targets, supplied fake bombs for the synagogues and a fake missile to shoot down planes. The motion said he also offered to pay the defendants, who attorneys alleged weren’t inclined toward any crime until the informant began recruiting them.

    Why do I suspect that this is true? That some loudmouthed, braggart Muslim bigots went from talking shit to conspiring to plant bombs only because federal agents encouraged and cajoled them at every turn while and pretending to remove all obstacles that stood in their way would have seemed implausible to me ten years ago. It doesn’t anymore.

    1. Ten years ago we had the this quaint legal concept called entrapment. Now, not so much. These were just aggressive officers.

      1. Entrapment is needed to show that the WOT can produce results. 😉

    2. J sub D,

      The idea that people would buy their own tracking devices seemed implausible to me 15, 20 years ago.

  18. Health care stocks are up this morning; what a surprise.

    1. I haven’t looked but I’ll bet pharmaceutical stocks are up as well.

  19. Free of charge, the New York homeless link.

    The Bloomberg administration said Friday that the number of people living on New York’s streets and subways soared 34 percent in a year, signaling a setback in one of the city’s most intractable problems.

    Appearing both startled and dismayed by the sharp increase, a year after a significant drop, administration officials attributed it to the recession, noting that city shelters for families and single adults had been inundated.

    It’s not all bad though. The NBA Nets have found new digs.

    1. So at least one set of bums has a new home.

      1. Heh! At 7-62 the Nets are on track for the worst record in NBA history.

        1. Yeah, “bums” was a bit harsh. They’re a young team with some promising players like Robin Lopez and Yi Jianlian.

      2. You take that back!

    2. the sharp increase, a year after a significant drop

      I hope they consult someone who knows something about statistics before throwing more millions at the problem.

  20. Homer: (Wearing an FBI listening device.) Hey, see you’re watching the ball game. Looks like a good one. Any of you involved in any illegal activity? Cause I could sure go for some. How bout you, Lenny? Testing, testing. Lenny?
    Lenny: You saying you want to commit a crime, Homer?
    Homer: Maybe. But first I need to hear about some other crimes to get me fired up.
    Carl: You mean like the time you was running moonshine out of your basement?
    Barney: Or that telemarketing scam you pulled?
    Homer: Uh . . . like those, but involving you.
    Moe: Oh, you mean like the time Barney beat up George Bush?
    Homer: Barney!? That was me! And I’d do it again.
    Charlie: Why stop there, Homer? My militia has a secret plan to beat up all sorts of government officials. That’ll teach them to drag their feet on high definition TV!
    FBI Agent: You’re under arrest for conspiracy!
    Moe: How’d they finger Charlie? Somebody must have ratted him out.
    Homer: Oh, that’s ridiculous, Moe. End transmission.

  21. The silver lining, I hope, is that this utterly exhausted the President’s and the Dem’s supply of political capital for this session. We won’t be seeing any more big bills.

    The task now is to get a Republican majority in the House, to block any kind of comprehensive energy plan or whatever hideous, micro-management, graft-soaked financial regulation the Dems have planned.

    IMO, this is no time for purists to sit on the sidelines saying “Well, the Repubs are 99% as bad as the Dems, so fuck ’em.” God knows I have little use for Repubs any more, but I think priority one at this point is stopping one-party rule in Washington.

    1. I won’t be sitting on the sidelines but I won’t be voting for either major party. You may recall getting regularly butt fucked by the GOP during Bush the Lesser’s administration as well. I don’t think rewarding rapists is a good idea.

    2. RC, I normally agree with you, but we have to think longer-term than this. The Republicans are out of power and slowly being dragged in our direction. If we go out and vote for whatever chum they slop our way, they’re going to snap back into position.

      Voting for specific people running on the R ticket might help a bit in the short term, and would send the right signals for the longer term. But to bend over and vote down the party line? No way. They need to shape up, and if it takes another four years of Democratic rule for them to do so, it will be worth the investment.

      Of course, I live in Chicago, so my vote means zero. My money can speak elsewhere, though.

      1. PS Every time I find myself being a “purist” in matters electoral, I remind myself that Ayn Rand hit the pavement for Wendell Willkie.

      2. They need to shape up, and if it takes another four years of Democratic rule for them to do so, it will be worth the investment.

        Ordinarily, I would be sympathetic to this, but I think the cost-benefit analysis has changed. If the Dems hold the House, they will feel bullet-proof, and we can expect more disastrous “comprehensive” bills like this on party-line votes. If we get cap-and-trade out of a Dem Congress in 2011, would you feel that is worth it teach Repubs a lesson?

        And just what lesson will we be teaching them after their last stand on healthcare reform? That opposing big government isn’t the way to win?

        Why won’t rewarding the Repubs for holding the line on healthcare continue to drag them in our direction? Won’t a historic landslide on a platform of smaller government be pretty instructive?

        1. Why won’t rewarding the Repubs for holding the line on healthcare continue to drag them in our direction?

          Because most of them don’t have principled objections to larger, more intrusive government. They are just playing politics now and see this “no” vote as a grandstanding opportunity to better set themselves up for November 2010. Once back in power, I expect 90% of them to revert to their old ways.

          1. So, leaving the Repubs in the minority and allowing the Dems to ram through bill after “comprehensive” bill through next year will do what, exactly, to move the Repubs our direction?

            They are motivated by the acquisition and exercise of power. What they will see is the Dems acquiring, maintaining, and exercising power with a Total State platform. The lesson will be . . . ?

            1. “””They are motivated by the acquisition and exercise of power. What they will see is the Dems acquiring, maintaining, and exercising power with a Total State platform. The lesson will be . . . ?”””

              No tactic to dirty.

            2. I didn’t say staying on the sidelines (in my case as a principled nonvoter) would bring them in our direction, only that I don’t believe what you’re saying will work. The current and near future Republican party is irretrievably lost. Vote for them or not, there is no chance they will govern like libertarians. None.

          2. Once back in power, I expect 90% of them to revert to their old ways.

            I don’t believe that 90% of them have really budged in the first place. As you say,

            most of them don’t have principled objections to larger, more intrusive government

            I’m supposed to vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 just because the party held the line on HCR? Comrade, please.

            1. Mitt will fix Obama care. 😉

            2. Good catch, that was a poor choice of words on my part. You’re right they haven’t budged. The only thing that’s changed is they are now mouthing more of the right words. Words that amount to jack shit because they wouldn’t dare upset the apple cart and put those words into practice.

          3. I would rather have someone do the right thing for the wrong reason than the wrong thing for the right reason. Who cares if they are principled? All that matters is they vote the right way. And if they vote in smaller government, I don’t care if they are doing it to save their asses or because they are true believers.

            1. I care, because I’m not an end justifies the means type of guy. Face it John, you’re a statist Republican. You say and believe a lot of good things — and we can break bread over those — but process and reasons matter.

        2. If we get cap-and-trade out of a Dem Congress in 2011, would you feel that is worth it teach Repubs a lesson?

          If it results in a more libertarian GOP with the balls to overturn that and other fiascos of legislation, then yes.

          1. That’s a big if, Marc. You’re trading the near-certainty of a continued rampage by the Dems against the chance of the Repubs concluding, after watching the Dems get their every wish and holding power while doing it, that they should stick with a small-government strategy even though it fell short in 2010.

            1. It comes down to this, then: I need some more evidence that they are in fact sticking with a small government strategy. This one vote on HCR is not enough to make me vote for someone in November just because they have an R next to their name.

              Meanwhile, we can send the right signals in the meantime by throwing our weight behind R contenders that at least talk the talk.

              1. John Boehner voted for TARP. That’s all you need to know about the man’s principles.

          2. “””If it results in a more libertarian GOP with the balls to overturn that and other fiascos of legislation, then yes.”””

            That “if” puts you squarely in the no catagory. No way that “if” will happen.

          3. Don’t get me wrong, you will probaly hear some rhetoric that they will bring in a more responsible government. But remember, Bush jr. ran on a limited, more ethical government platform in 2000. How did that turn out?

            1. It’s all so fucking depressing.

              1. “””It’s all so fucking depressing.”””

                I wonder if that’s the point. More customers for the pharma industry.

                1. That idea tethers nicely to J Sub D’s 10:09 comment.

            2. As long as we’re making assumptions that the past perfectly predicts the future, then you have to compare it to 1994-1999, with a Dem President and GOP Congress. And I think it’s pretty clear that those results were better than the other three combinations of party control recently.

              1. “””As long as we’re making assumptions that the past perfectly predicts the future, then you have to compare it to 1994-1999, “””

                Who’s making that assumption like that? All I’m saying you can’t trust a politician at his word and Bush was proof that just being repubican and talking limited government, does mean that is what you will get.

            3. Don’t get me wrong, you will probaly hear some rhetoric that they will bring in a more responsible government.

              If they lose, and the Democrats win re-election after running policy so far to the left that Democrats have been scared for a generation to run on, assuming that actually running that way would cause the American people to vote against them, then what?

              Both parties would move away from libertarians, not for them.

              1. Both parties would move away from libertarians, not for them.

                Yeah, but they were both already doing that.

                1. Yeah, but they were both already doing that.

                  Yeah, because it was winning elections to do so.

              2. I would be surprised if the republicans didn’t win big due to this legislation.

    3. I live in the 7th District of Texas, probably one of the reddest urban districts in the nation, so I do better by voting LP and keeping their ballot access than by making John Culberson’s victory 71-29 than 70-30.

      1. Yeah. I’m in TX 8th. Kevin Brady’s going to get reelected no matter what I do. Bastard got 78% in the primary, despite everybody being pissed about him voting for the bailout. He’ll crush whatever sap the donks put up in the fall, so I’m voting LP (again).

      2. Guess what? Wherever you live, the election will come out the same no matter how you vote.

    4. “””The silver lining, I hope, is that this utterly exhausted the President’s and the Dem’s supply of political capital for this session. We won’t be seeing any more big bills.”””

      I said the same thing about the stimulus act.

  22. Wrong link on the word “homeless”…

  23. Hey, what about us? We haven’t signed off on this yet!

    Hello? (tap tap) Is this thing on?

    1. Uh, yes, you have. What was just passed was the Senate bill. Obama will sign it, and it will be law, regardless of the fate of the “fix-it” bill.

      1. I will be laughing my ass off, if Senate jams up the HCR bill and Obama, looking to make it happen quickly, just signs the Senate bill. No need for Senate to pass the HCR then, they got what they wanted, a historic change in health care.

        Your right RC, some people don’t realize that health care reform is a done deal, signed by both houses of Congress, ready for the President.

        The dumbest person on earth is a politician that puts trust in other politicians. It’s like expecting honor among theives.

        1. I never said we were very smart.

  24. Beforehand, the White House released two photos showing hand-picked images of a president in a serious fight for votes until the end.

    In one, Obama was on a cell phone talking to an unidentified lawmaker from the office of his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. The president was surrounded by Emanuel and four other legislative and political advisers. There wasn’t a smile in the room.

    The other photo showed Obama in the Oval Office, sleeves rolled up, working the phones again in conversation with another unnamed lawmaker.

    Jesus Christ.

    1. No, Obama. Jesus isn’t nearly important enough.

      1. Joel is in serious consderation for threadwinner with this one.

        1. It gets my vote.

  25. Howard Dean says, “Americans love winners.”

    and “This is just a larger version of the Massachusetts plan.”

    There will be no adverse effects (politically).

  26. Yesterday, I sent my 1st term democratic congressman that I would do everything I do everything I could to see he was unseated this fall if the HCR passed.

    Looks like I’ll be calling up the repubican campaign office this week.

    1. Just call me stuttering joe.

      1. Mine is a first-termer supporter too – I will actually, for the first time, be supporting the Republican in that district.

        1. The good news is the Republican challenger is a bright, energetic lady who does not appear to be involved with the social conservatives. With any luck, we’ll get two good years of service out of her before she caves in to the Republican theocracy.

          1. She still has to make it through the primary in June. Nuts.

            1. Mine won after three recounts – what she was thinking, I have no idea. Clearly two years was enough for her.

              1. I’d try that, but it would give my rep a good laugh.

                This is my district. I’m sure the abstract shape and extension over completely unrelated towns that happen to be solid D voting blocs is just a massive coincidence.

  27. I’d like to thank George W. Bush for laying the groundwork for today by running a thoroughly despised and reviled administration.

    1. Just let it go, Tim. W can’t hurt you any more. This is a 100% Democratic project, with nary a Republican fingerprint on it, much less a greasy Frito-print from W.

      1. It’s my bitterness, let me cling to it.

        1. Just so it doesn’t drain any of your hate for the Dems, I’m cool.

      2. “””This is a 100% Democratic project, with nary a Republican fingerprint on it, much less a greasy Frito-print from W.”””

        They are just picking up where he left off with Medicare Part D.

        1. They’re just picking up where you left off with mandatory government certifications for physicians.

          Don’t act like you’re some kind of libertarian on health care, TrickyVic. And don’t you dare act like other people who are only half-way statist are just as guilty as the full statists, when you’re a one-quarter statist on healthcare.

          1. “”They’re just picking up where you left off with mandatory government certifications for physicians.””

            Not even close.

            1. “”when you’re a one-quarter statist on healthcare.””

              Perhaps you didn’t pay enough attention to that thread. I have no problem with licenses from a private entity. Something, if I remember correctly, you were not against.

        2. Well, yeah, since America elected the candidate who supported Medicare Part D (but wanted it bigger), not the guy who voted against Medicare Part D.

          The clear message from America in 2004 and 2008 is– we’ll vote for a Republican who expands government, not the one who voted no on Medicare Part D.

    2. I’d like to thank people who voted against a candidate who voted against Medicare Part D because it was too expensive, because GWB (not on the ballot) brought it in. Good thing this crazy guy who wants to repeal the just-passed bill isn’t President.

      McCain, who was Obama’s rival in the 2008 presidential election, told ABC television that “outside the (Washington) Beltway, the American people are very angry. They don’t like it, and we’re going to repeal this.”

      1. Except that he not only voted, but also crafted BCRA, so the societal ass-pounding balances out.

  28. Bush was the John the Baptist of Big Government.

  29. This is a 100% Democratic project, with nary a Republican fingerprint on it, much less a greasy Frito-print from W.

    BS. Republicans helped build the intellectual foundation. They did so on a smaller scale, but this is not one of those differences in scale become differences in kind sort of things. All their refusal to participate and no-vote posturing now is meaningless. They helped lay the groundwork, and it’s littered with “R” fingerprints.

    1. If this sometimes-anarchist, straight-LP-voting individual can see that, perceptually, the Republicans were better this time, then so can you.

      1. “Better” does not mean “entirely without blame”.

        Yes, the GOP is better this time. So fucking what?

      2. Are you arguing with the voice in your head? I said the Republicans share some of the blame, and the take that this is a 100% Dem project is baseless. Which team is better is not at issue.

    2. I would have preferred that the GOP engaged the process in order to obtain concessions that scale back the scope of this bill. Maybe they would have failed, but they failed anyway and got nothing. Sure, the opposition forced the Dems to scale back the bill, but I don’t see much of the GOPs mark on this bill. The GOP wanted it that way because they prefer to play political games rather than exhibit actual leadership.

      1. In this case you are wrong. Fighting it a outrance was a sign of actual leadership. 100% no votes is a sign of leadership.

  30. How could Cornell have so many suicides? They made the sweet sixteen. WTF.

    1. Wait to see what happens to the numbers after Thursday night.

      1. Lockdown!

  31. I’d like to thank George W. Bush for laying the groundwork for today by running a thoroughly despised and reviled administration.

    I’m with Tim; this is the result of a progression of “compassionate” politics.

    W made it possible.

    1. I tend to agree. Sell a huge undertaking with dubious information and you have to expect the other side to do the same when they come to power.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.